The revised ban already had been blocked by federal district court judges in Hawaii and Maryland and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Virginia.
A three-judge panel said the administration failed to show that blocking citizens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was needed to protect the US.
A ruling from the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals marks the second appeals court decision against Trump's revised 'travel ban.' This is a blow for the Trump administration which has repeatedly defended the ban.
Trump's travel ban is going before the Supreme Court for review after the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against it Monday. The court also declined to decide whether the order violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against Muslims, ruling instead that it violated immigration law.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order to impose tighter vetting of travelers entering the United States, at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Picture taken in January. It said the Trump administration failed to show that people, including refugees, coming from mainly Muslim nations would be detrimental to USA interests. The difference? Trump shifted the element of danger away from the countries included in his travel ban and instead focused on the danger the US faces. Though other parts remained same.
Unlike the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which shot down the President's revised travel ban on constitutional grounds last month, the Ninth Circuit was persuaded by statutory claims under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.More news: Two more wins for Team NZ
More news: Mercedes more united than ever - Hamilton
More news: Russian troops, defence industry benefit from Syrian operations: Vladimir Putin
Orrick is a lower-court judge whose rulings would be reviewed by the 9th Circuit.
The state of Hawaii filed a court challenge, arguing that its universities and tourism industry had been harmed by the travel ban.
The new briefs would be focused on the Monday decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In their ruling, the three judges referenced the questionable language in one of the president's latest tweets, which was sent on June 5: "That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain risky countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!"
The court cited two previous Supreme Court cases in its conclusion - including one in 1944 involving the containment of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II, an idea that then-Justice Frank Murphy said "falls into the ugly abyss of racism".